Last edited:
CTE: The Nuts and Bolts Counterpoints
- Thread starter duckie
- Start date
I'm going to support the arrow and duckie on this one; I think you guys are needlessly "piling on" with a distinction without a difference.
Where to point the stick is a key part of any aiming method. Just visualizing a ghost ball next to the OB and saying to "replace" the ghost ball with the CB is fine, but adding the prescription of pointing the stick at the center, or the vertical axis, of the ghost ball is more complete. The arrow simply identifies a point on that vertical axis, and using that base-of-the-ball point as the aim point is thoroughly in keeping with the ghost-ball aiming method. True, some players will rely entirely on identifying that base-of-the-ball aiming point without trying to visualize the full ghost ball, but I don't think that disqualifies the method from being a form of ghost-ball aiming.
I agree with you somewhat. The Arrow is actually just another Ghost Ball training device. I was responding to Duckie himself saying he doesn't use ghost ball.
True GB aiming as taught in almost all basic instruction books IS imagining the whole ball and replacing it with the cue ball.
simplified GB aiming is trying to estimate the base of the Ghost Ball and this what the Arrow shows.
He wants to have a conversation about Ghost Ball then he shouldn't split hairs about what it is. Some people would say that it's much easier to imagine a whole ball rather than to estimate a point's placement.
Yup, that was what I was trying to convey, albeit I might've failed. Concerning the bolded, I'm one of those people. Look (pun unintended) at it this way: when you get down on the shot, you have the object ball in front of you. It's much easier to see the "spherical size" of the object ball, and transpose an exact "ghost" of it to the left or to the right (in connection with the object ball, in-line with the pocket) than it is to see that spot on the cloth where it would touch. Then, you just shoot the cue ball "into the space of" that ghostball. That's true ghostball, by its definition.
Again, the ghostball will be the exact same size as the object ball, so it's easy[ier] to perceive it sitting right next to the object ball, because you already have a "guide" -- the object ball itself. This is a very easy "trick" for your mind to conjure -- a perceived ghost of the same physical object, sitting right next to that object itself. It's like tracing paper. Much easier than trying to accurately visualize a spot on the cloth where that perceived ball would touch.
-Sean
Why Ghost Ball Aiming is Bad for Good Players
Here you go Greg, I did a 48 minute explanation of Ghost Ball and why I don't think you are right.
http://youtu.be/ePqvWvD7V0U HAD TO REUPLOAD - WHEN DONE THIS SHOULD WORK.
Please don't make the mistake of claiming that those of who don't use GB have not spent enough time with it. I look forward to your video rebuttal. I also made an Arrow and showed why I think it's practically useless for most good players.
Here you go Greg, I did a 48 minute explanation of Ghost Ball and why I don't think you are right.
http://youtu.be/ePqvWvD7V0U HAD TO REUPLOAD - WHEN DONE THIS SHOULD WORK.
Please don't make the mistake of claiming that those of who don't use GB have not spent enough time with it. I look forward to your video rebuttal. I also made an Arrow and showed why I think it's practically useless for most good players.
Last edited:
Everyone knows you cannot see ghosts...I can certainly see my CTE visuals however.
A non-starter. Those that are experienced with "ghostball methods" aren't actually trying to view "ghosts" or view a ghostball. They've graduated to more tangible visuals -- visuals that actually exist, like Back-of-ball aiming (used by most snooker pros), CP-to-CP, or fractional aiming.
Like John says in his video -- "...is bad for GOOD players." Those that are in the early learning stages of the game -- like duckie -- are still trying to use their arrow or other ghostball training devices; whereas good players have graduated beyond that, and subsequently use tangible visuals to more accurately get that cue ball to the ghostball position.
-Sean
John:
Careful. In this video, you make the SAME MISTAKE that duckie does, by first shooting holes in duckie's theory of shooting over the spot on the table where the ghostball would be touching the object ball, and then base the rest of your video upon conjecture that "all ghostball aiming is flawed for this reason" -- of that contact point on the table.
Ghostball techniques do not have to rely upon this, and, in fact, many good players that use those techniques aren't envisioning a spot on the table to shoot the cue ball at. You've mentioned Back-of-ball and fractional aiming in passing in some of your videos, but they deserve greater coverage, because they are based on tangible visuals, just like CTE or any other pivot-based aiming system is.
By the way, while the above video is good (albeit flawed for the "tunnel vision" reason I mention above), you put out a much better video that better demonstrates why duckie's "envisioning the ghostball's contact patch on the cloth" is such a bad idea for more experienced players:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d-L4QMNiVxk
-Sean
I disagree Sean.
My video shows that even a very small misjudgement in estimation can result in a miss.
Back of Ball - or Contact Point aiming is certainly more tangible than imagining a ball or trying to pick a spot that is exactly 2.25" from the center of the object ball. And this is also not real GB aiming because to really use BOB you either have to identify the contact point and use feel/intuition to line up so that the contact points line up OR you have to identify the contact point on the CB and match it to the contact point on the OB. The latter method is of course better if one can identify the contact points relatively consistently.
But it's still picking a point on a round object and trying to hold it.
Fractional Aiming? Same thing, it's ball to ball aiming which is better but there is still estimating happening as to whether the shot is a true fraction or a smidgen one way or the other. As Mohrt points out the only really objective alignment is center cue ball to the edge of the object ball (half-ball) and the center to center/edges to edges (straight-in). Everything else is estimating the overlap/fraction.
All estimation methods are flawed for the very same reason, the dependency on the shooter's ability to estimate a distance or position. Some people are great at it and others are very inconsistent.
Thus, the more objective references that a person can use the less estimation is involved and the more actual measurement and consistent alignment. That was the point of my video.
Concerning the bolded, yes, estimating an arbitrary point on the cloth is indeed fraught with error. We don't "disagree" there. Where we disagree, is basing the concept of the entire video on this point.
As to the other methods -- BoB and fractional aiming -- and your point that it's still "estimation," prone to being a 1/16th of an inch "off" in either direction, I can say the same about CTE and its manual pivot (i.e. bridge length? And the golden nugget argued about on here for so long -- where is the origination / placement point of that pivot?) or of Pro/1 -- and its visuals. All of these are prone to the human factor of estimation and perception accuracy. (And unlike duckie, I've actually tried and worked with these systems, in the spirit of trying to know it better to be able to discuss it intelligently.
)Regardless of aiming system, they are all prone to the human element of perception, no matter how "objective" the system claims to be. What matters, is that you try them and practice with them, select the one that works for you, and ingrain it. I think you'll agree on that point. Right?
-Sean
Concerning the bolded, yes, estimating an arbitrary point on the cloth is indeed fraught with error. We don't "disagree" there. Where we disagree, is basing the concept of the entire video on this point.
As to the other methods -- BoB and fractional aiming -- and your point that it's still "estimation," prone to being a 1/16th of an inch "off" in either direction, I can say the same about CTE and its manual pivot (i.e. bridge length? And the golden nugget argued about on here for so long -- where is the origination / placement point of that pivot?) or of Pro/1 -- and its visuals. All of these are prone to the human factor of estimation and perception accuracy. (And unlike duckie, I've actually tried and worked with these systems, in the spirit of trying to know it better to be able to discuss it intelligently.
Regardless of aiming system, they are all prone to the human element of perception, no matter how "objective" the system claims to be. What matters, is that you try them and practice with them, select the one that works for you, and ingrain it. I think you'll agree on that point. Right?
-Sean
For the CTE bridge length, it is most important for shots where CB/OB distance is < 1 diamond to shorten it up. Also for Pro One, the bridge length is less of an issue as there is no manual pivot. The eye movements in Pro One are the same for all left pivots and all right pivots, so you only need to learn two of them coupled with the visuals. Pro One is really easier than manual pivoting: line up visuals, move into CCB, shoot. What you were doing with a 1/2 tip manual pivot you now do during ball address.
I'm speaking of my own experience here: once you reach a point of proficiency, this ball pocketing method is far more consistent, repeatable, sustainable and objective than ghost-ball ever was. This includes the manual pivot method. This is 100% evident in the change in my game over the last couple years. Is it the same for everyone? I suppose that answer is subjective. The only way you'll know is to put in the time and effort.
Last edited:
Concerning the bolded, yes, estimating an arbitrary point on the cloth is indeed fraught with error. We don't "disagree" there. Where we disagree, is basing the concept of the entire video on this point.
As to the other methods -- BoB and fractional aiming -- and your point that it's still "estimation," prone to being a 1/16th of an inch "off" in either direction, I can say the same about CTE and its manual pivot (i.e. bridge length? And the golden nugget argued about on here for so long -- where is the origination / placement point of that pivot?) or of Pro/1 -- and its visuals. All of these are prone to the human factor of estimation and perception accuracy. (And unlike duckie, I've actually tried and worked with these systems, in the spirit of trying to know it better to be able to discuss it intelligently.
Regardless of aiming system, they are all prone to the human element of perception, no matter how "objective" the system claims to be. What matters, is that you try them and practice with them, select the one that works for you, and ingrain it. I think you'll agree on that point. Right?
-Sean
I totally agree that the more you work with any system the more you can find out the limits.
I do agree that the bridge distance/placement is a point of contention in CTE but it's actual not really something that is estimated in my opinion. I am not willing to concede the point that it's the same as the amount of estimation in ghost ball aiming.
The origination point in CTE and Pro one comes from the use of the extremely objective edge to align to. From there the bridge hand lands on the table pretty much in the right spot for the shot. In my opinion this happens automatically because the body gets positioned using the edge of the OB. And this is because, also in my opinion, the exit lines at the back of the cue ball are less than 1mm apart from the CTE line to the GB line. So that's why I feel that CTE requires little to no estimation.
Actually I didn't say that fractional aiming or BOB is prone to being off by any particular amount. As I said in the video though being off has two consequences.
Either the shooter has a dead straight laser stroke and misses because of being off the right shot line. Or they manipulate the stroke in order to throw the balls in.
For me, the video was frozen from about 36:26 on, while the audio continued to the end. You might want to check that.
tap tap tap Sean.Concerning the bolded, yes, estimating an arbitrary point on the cloth is indeed fraught with error. We don't "disagree" there. Where we disagree, is basing the concept of the entire video on this point.
As to the other methods -- BoB and fractional aiming -- and your point that it's still "estimation," prone to being a 1/16th of an inch "off" in either direction, I can say the same about CTE and its manual pivot (i.e. bridge length? And the golden nugget argued about on here for so long -- where is the origination / placement point of that pivot?) or of Pro/1 -- and its visuals. All of these are prone to the human factor of estimation and perception accuracy. (And unlike duckie, I've actually tried and worked with these systems, in the spirit of trying to know it better to be able to discuss it intelligently.
Regardless of aiming system, they are all prone to the human element of perception, no matter how "objective" the system claims to be. What matters, is that you try them and practice with them, select the one that works for you, and ingrain it. I think you'll agree on that point. Right?
-Sean
If ghost ball doesn't work, I guess the tangent line reference is pointless too.
Nobody would be able to consistently place that line 1 1/8 from contact point.
Promote CTE as much as you want but world champions have used the ghost ball for ages. Discounting it ain't going to make any other system better.
I believe CJ has said that no pro he's talked to has ever said they use GB.
Edit: And it's not that I don't believe GB works, but Pro One is a much easier in my opinion. I guess the way I look at it is, if one method allows to you make a shot without ever practicing it, then it's the superior method.
Last edited:
Sorry, but Parica teaches it.
And Jerry Breisath teaches it as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpbNlnS9GFk
Should I pull out snooker videos too ?
Last edited:
Teaches and uses are two entirely different thing. Plus, that's one person out of countless pros out there.
Try again.
Well, he told me over dinner pocketing is automatic to him now.
He said his mind is just like a computer now.
Here's another ghost ball aiming video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKjITnc9SKQ
Unfortunately for ghost ball system is, you won't sell dvd's teaching it.
No one said ghost-ball doesn't work. It probably goes to say that any aiming system or aiming method can be made as successful as you want, given the appropriate time and commitment to get there and stay on top of it.
To chop down a tree, I can choose a chainsaw, axe, hand saw, or butter knife. They all work, and they all require their own amount of effort, and there can be varying opinions which is better.
To chop down a tree, I can choose a chainsaw, axe, hand saw, or butter knife. They all work, and they all require their own amount of effort, and there can be varying opinions which is better.
Last edited: